Anyone experiences with the Sigma 12-24mm Zoom

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Norm Dresner, May 22, 2005.

  1. Norm Dresner

    Norm Dresner Guest

    Since I won't be giving up my film SLRs any time soon even though I took the
    plunge and bought a DSLR that uses the same lenses, I find that I need a
    real wide angle lens for the DSLR that's at least as wide as the 19-35mm
    Zoom that I've used for over a year on the film bodies. With a 1.5x factor
    on the DSLR, a 12-24 works like an 18-36 on the film bodies and is
    (essentially) the same range as the 19-35 PLUS it would give me a 12-24 on
    the film bodies for super wide angle shots.

    Another possibility is a Sigma 14mm fixed focal length which is actually
    $100 less than the zoom.

    I won't buy (yet) a digital-only lens so any of those are out of the
    question right now unless there's a really compelling reason to do that.

    Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
    14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).

    Norm Dresner, May 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Norm Dresner

    [BnH] Guest

    According to review Sigma 12-24 is a bit soft compared to its Tokina
    A few friend uses the Canon mount type, regret it and bought the Canon 10-22
    Also I won't rush myself to grab the Tokina as I rarely shoot landscape and
    my 17-35 still suffice.

    US retailers is selling them for around USD 500 , while HK dealers in eBAY
    starting to sell them for around USD 600 in Australia
    [ while in Singapore, they charge USD 700 for them :p]

    If the stock level is normal and the retailers are not charging a premium
    over it, one copy will be sitting in my dry box.

    [BnH], May 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Norm Dresner

    Bubbabob Guest

    I love it (Sigma 12-24). No problems or shortcomings at all. Best $600 I've
    spent in some time.
    Bubbabob, May 22, 2005
  4. Norm Dresner

    Paul Furman Guest

    I'm having a great time with mine. Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
    pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
    lens that wide. It is a sturdy piece of equiptment.
    Paul Furman, May 22, 2005
  5. I have the Sigma 12-24mm in Nikon mount. I haven't tried
    printing anything larger than 8x12" from any of my shots with it,
    but I'm satisfied with the sharpness in scans.

    Unfortunately, the sample variation on this lens is pretty high.
    After borrowing my copy, a friend of mine purchased one, only
    to exchange it twice until he was happy with his. Chromatic
    aberrations and geometric distortion seem to be well controlled.

    On a 35mm film camera, the 12mm field of view is pretty wild,
    and requires a fair amount of thought to use. If you are
    the slightest bit off true with your composition, it will
    spoil the shot.

    One other issue to note. The lens comes with a standard 82mm
    lens cap and a "collar." On a film camera you have to remove the
    collar or suffer extreme vignetting. Supposedly you can mount
    82mm filters on the collar, but I'm told that even thin filters
    vignette on a 1.5x dSLR.
    Michael Benveniste, May 22, 2005
  6. Norm Dresner

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I'm pretty sure the 12-24mm is digital only.
    Paul Rubin, May 22, 2005
  7. Norm Dresner

    Stacey Guest

    It's not.
    Stacey, May 22, 2005
  8. Norm Dresner

    Bubbabob Guest

    It is.
    Bubbabob, May 23, 2005
  9. Norm Dresner

    Bubbabob Guest

    Not the first time I've heard this. Either it's not as common as they say
    or I was lucky.
    The collar itself will vignette on a 1.5X DSLR.
    Bubbabob, May 23, 2005
  10. Norm Dresner

    Norm Dresner Guest

    The Sigma 12-24 is for both. The Tokina is digital only. Check the ads

    Norm Dresner, May 23, 2005
  11. Norm Dresner

    Bandicoot Guest

    Pentax SMC 15mm f2.8 A. I don't see any flare to speak of...

    OK, not a 12mm, but as wide on 35mm as the Sigma is on a cropped sensor,
    where it will still flare. So good design, a fixed Fl rather than a zoom,
    and / or Pentax's very much better coating certainly mean that flare is not
    _inevitable_ in a wide lens.

    Not to say that I don't think the Sigma is a remarkable piece of work for
    the price, however, and if I used a cropped sensor DSLR I'd probably
    consider getting one.

    Bandicoot, May 23, 2005
  12. Norm Dresner

    r Guest

    Say no to Sigma!
    r, May 23, 2005
  13. Norm Dresner

    Paul Furman Guest

    Crazy flare (sun spot) effects

    Facts anyone?
    Paul Furman, May 23, 2005
  14. Norm Dresner

    r Guest

    What facts?
    r, May 23, 2005
  15. Norm Dresner

    Paul Furman Guest

    Facts about flare causes in general (too many uncoated elements AFAIK)
    and/or performance on the Sigma vs others.
    Paul Furman, May 23, 2005
  16. Norm Dresner

    Stacey Guest

    Hmm my 11-22 ZD doesn't do it. Matter of fact even my MC'd soviet medium
    format fisheye doesn't, but then again the single coated one did this

    "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
    Stacey, May 23, 2005
  17. Norm Dresner

    Alan Browne Guest

    So, what lens will not exhibit flare when light from the sun is on the
    Alan Browne, May 23, 2005
  18. Norm Dresner

    Alan Browne Guest

    You can't take a photo of any subject where light from the sun (or other
    high intensity source) falls on the front element (even if not in the
    scene) without getting flare in the image. Coatings may reduce them or
    tame their contrast, but they will be in the image.

    Alan Browne, May 23, 2005
  19. Norm Dresner

    Juan Aranda Guest

    I have a question Alan, and please pardon my ignorance, I'm only a very
    green beginner. But, could you please explain to me how these pictures were

    Like I said, I'm quite inexperienced, so maybe it's just that I can't really
    identify the flare in them. However, I can certainly see flare on these:
    You'll have to scroll down to the paragraph about flare to see the pictures.


    Juan Aranda, May 23, 2005
  20. Norm Dresner

    Alan Browne Guest

    The author explains his technique, so that is the best answer to 'how
    they were taken'. He also states for some photos that "this was the
    best of the three" so I suspect he brackets somewhat, which given his
    use of slide film and these subjects, is the way to go. (See below also).

    Example: you can see
    the flare immediately around the sun and in the clouds. This flare is
    not dramatic, but it is flare. also has flare around
    the sun.

    These are not full sunlight photos. There is a lot more atmosphere and
    humidity between the sun and the lens, so the amount of light has been
    reduced a lot. Flare effects will be less, and flare will be masked in
    areas where there are bright areas (clouds).

    I didn't mention the other obvious thing, contrast. When light falls
    directly on the front element, contrast is reduced as well.
    the effect is noticeable in the tree.

    I believe these images were significantly processed in PS or similar,
    which would also reduce or elimintate the flare artifacts. The author
    doesn't state so, but the blocking up in some color areas suggests it.

    They are all wonderful images of course and makes me wish I had as rich
    a subject area for this kind of thing...

    Alan Browne, May 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.